Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:
True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).
Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017
So let's face islam with this definition.
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").
And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.
* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".
Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite
The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.
It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!
Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The area we today call Pakistan was more than a Millennia ago slaughtered, enslaved & raped by Arabic islam (submission). This is the root of the problem with Pakistan - how to get rid of islam!
Klevius comment: Anyone curious abt the real origin of islam now has the opportunity to see it live - not only in Afghanistan/Pakistan, but around the world. And when wealthy Pakis escape from islam to the West they stubbornly repeat the Western dogma: "Islam isn't islam". Why? Because they, like the moron in the White House & other supporters of islamofascism, "respect islam" the worst crime ever against humanity! Would you believe it! Aggressive islam (i.e. political islam) creeps through the Vagina gate, AK47, TNT, & democratic institutions (which hence have ceased to be democratic). Like all fascisms islam is a one way road to hell.
According to Bill Warner (Center for the Study of Political Islam) 61 percent of the Koran talks ills of unbelievers or calls for their violent conquest and subjugation, but only 2.6 percent of it talks about the overall good of humanity.
Moorthy Muthuswamy: In fact, an appropriate and statistically acceptable characterization is that Islamic doctrines overwhelmingly preach dislike, hatred and conquest of unbelievers and that this material constitutes the majority of the content in the Koran. Using this statistical basis, one may also interpret that the token “goodness” toward unbelievers is present in the Koran in order to camouflage the true intent of subjugating and conquering them. When this anti-unbeliever-rich Islamic doctrine is preached through mainstream mosques, one could justifiably claim that neither the mosques nor the people who deliver the sermons there nor those who listen to them are likely to develop a moderate outlook toward unbelievers.
During the past sixty years from every Muslim majority region of South Asia – without exception – upon gaining power Muslims have set about marginalizing and worse – expelled most non-Muslims to the neighboring non-Muslim majority areas. This occurred despite the people sharing everything – including ethnicity, culture, language, but excluding religion. Most of these expulsions occurred before 1975, when money from Saudi Arabia was starting to flow into the region to immerse the population with even more Islam.
Statistical Islam helps us, probably for the first time, comprehensively contest misinformed notions upon which flawed Western policies vis-à-vis Islam/Muslims have been based.
Data analysis strongly discounts President Obama’s assertion given in the first interview of his presidency to the Saudi Arabian TV network, Al-Hurra: “[w]e cannot paint with a broad brush a faith [Islam] as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.”
The analysis – subject to data and statistics – suggests that Muslim populations strongly driven by Islamic doctrines find “mutual interest and mutual respect” vis-à-vis Western civilization rather elusive. In this context, President Barak Obama’s declaration in his inauguration is really a ticket to nowhere – “[t]o the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”
Emancipation vs submission - Negative Human Rights vs islam
Samir Amin: “Mahmood Taha of Sudan was the only Islamic intellectual who attempted to emphasize the element of emancipation in his interpretation of Islam. . . . Taha's execution was not protested by any Islamic group, ‘radical' or ‘moderate.' Nor was he defended by any of the intellectuals identifying themselves with ‘Islamic Renaissance' or even those merely willing to ‘dialogue' with such movements. It was not even reported in the Western Media.”
Klevius comment: No wonder! This is precisely why islam is submission, i.e. to oppose emancipation!